Umpire assessors are best solution

THE EDITOR: Recently we have been seeing and reading of very bad umpiring decisions which seem far more regular than we can remember before we had instant replays. Some years ago, I had suggested to the then President of the ICC that they establish a panel of umpire assessors (like cricket selectors) to grade and appoint umpires for all Test games.  That panel would comprise of their peers who had been through the experience of Test umpiring. It would be chaired by someone neutral and every decision on replay would be reviewed. This umpiring panel should meet at least twice annually to review all Test umpires. Increasingly, we hear a clamour for using the available technology to minimise the blatantly absurd decisions by umpires. While I go along with this, it will slow down the game immensely. 

For example, even when a run out or stumping which is palpably out occurs the umpires automatically call for a replay.  If all other decisions were also referred to the third umpire the delays would be interminable. One of the axioms of umpiring is that one must not give a catch out by only hearing the snick but also by seeing it but recently I read that umpires are to be furnished with some gadget to hear snicks.  What about the previous axiom of also seeing it?  Will that now be rescinded? I suggest instead that the batsman who has been given out caught be allowed to appeal for a replay. If his appeal is negated he would incur a heavy fine.  Similarly, if it is the bowler or fieldsman who calls for the replay they are charged for negative appeals. The human frailties will have to continue for LBW decisions as I am not sure that ‘Hawkeye’ gets it right more often than the umpires. 

I suggest a change in the LBW rule to assist the umpires in relation to the practice where the batsman plays no stroke but is tucking his bat behind his pad, stretching forward and padding the ball away. The new rule should be that the benefit of the doubt be given to the bowler rather than the batsman. The last major change of the LBW law came about following the tactics of Cowdrey and May in padding away Ramadhin in that famous Test of 1957.  I usually agree when an umpire raises his finger to give the benefit of the doubt to the bowler like Umpire Hair does. I feel no sympathy for those West Indian batsmen who have been given out LBW without playing a stroke.  I note that the West Indies cricket team often plays football as part of their training sessions and that may be the reason the batsmen kick the ball away rather than use their bats.  Should we then send for Dwight and Stern to strengthen our batting?

A E (Sonny) MURRAY
Port-of-Spain